About your Search

20130101
20130131
SHOW
Hannity 10
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 90
CNNW 52
MSNBC 41
FOXNEWS 32
CURRENT 27
CNN 19
CSPAN 16
KQED (PBS) 14
WHUT (Howard University Television) 9
CSPAN2 8
FBC 8
WETA 8
KGO (ABC) 7
KNTV (NBC) 7
KRCB (PBS) 7
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 451
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 453 (some duplicates have been removed)
to chuck hagel what they were able to do to susan rice but it's not going to work this time because the white house is fighting back. they're already doing so. we've got to join that fight. we'll talk about that and a whole lot more. first, we get the latest, today's current news update, here she is, lisa ferguson out in los angeles. hi lisa. >> hey bill. welcome back. as bill mentioned obama's new appointments to his national security team are drawing some criticism from capitol hill. first off former senator chuck hagel who the president officially chose yesterday as his defense secretary. obama called him an american patriot and the leader our troops deserve. if confirmed hagel will be the first vietnam vet and the first enlisted soldier to become secretary of defense. republicans are criticizing the former senator for not having enough support for israel and not taking a hard enough stance against iran. democrats are also getting tough on hagel. newly-elected senator tammy baldwin, also the first openly gay u.s. senator says she plans on questioning hagel for his anti-gay commen
, but republican senators were still obsessed with one detail. united nation ambassador susan rice and her description of the attack on september 16th. tea party senator ron johnson of wisconsin grilled secretary clinton over something she had nothing to do with. >> do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened would have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? i mean, that was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained. >> well, but senator -- >> within hours, if not days. >> senator, i, you know, when you're in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on. >> i realize that's a good excuse. >> number two -- well, no, it's the fact. >> no answer was good enough for senator johnson. eventually secretary clinton had enough. >> we were misled that there was supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that. and that was easilies a center tained that that was not the fact and the american people could have known that within d
did, and susan rice got into deep trouble. in other words, shmonths. >> she had nothing to do with the aftermath, john. >> who didn't? >> susan rice. that's all the aftermath. >> you don't understand me. susan rice went on television early. >> she was sent out to do it. >> she, did and hillary waited, and she did -- that helped her in this presentation. >> she escaped the initial heat of all this, and she had a lot of time to think of a good way to kind of get out of the blame game here. and really, this hearing, i think the wfort thing about this hearing, aside from the politics, we still walked away without any answers. there are, yes, four dead americans, one of whom was pleading for extra help, extra security from the state department, and he didn't get it. and there were no clear answers as to why. all we got out of it was that hillary clinton was not to blame. >> hillary clinton has traveled almost a million miles since she's been secretary of state. that means she's been absent from the state debt. however, with modern technology that should be no problem, but there is
away from the susan rice pick. he gave in on taxing the top income earners at the rate he wanted. and so far he's really just tiptoed kind of cautiously around gun control. so this a confident obama based on the agenda you're seeing or a caution one? >> reporter: focusing on foreign policy, i think you'd have to say this is a confident president obama right now. just consider the selections of chuck hagel, john kerry, even though it's not susan rice, but also john brennan compared to four years ago. jim jones did not work out. there was secretary gates at defense that was brought over from the bush administration before him. and so i think in many ways this sort of demonstrates that the president feels he'll put his imprint on foreign policy going forward from him. hillary clinton a choice that some may have viewed as a concession of secretary of state and worked out well for both sides. >> david, you know, chuck hagel has gotten some opposition from the left and the right. do you expect in a second term now elected and safe obama might get some more opposition from the left, fro
weary with the relentless attacks first on susan rice and now on hillary clinton. there's a whisper to it and it's getting, i think, washington orientated rather than in the national interest of america. what do you think? >> i think there are legitimate questions that still need to be answered. as hillary clinton said today, the fbi is still working on the investigation. director mueller was in libya and tunisia recently. i get disappointed when people give half of the story. the guy has been released. as hillary clinton said today, yes, but he's under constant surveillance within tunisia and following the rule of law and as more evidence becomes available, they are prepared to act on him again. i think as hillary clinton said dramatically, our focus here now is to bring these guys to justice but also to understand benghazi in the context of what's happening over the last few days to understand the evolving threat from al qaeda and to deal appropriately with that. >> dana loesch there were phone calls today that they would have been fired. do you agree with that? >> there were a lo
and heavy drinking. so when republicans threaten to block susan rice, and now that they're threatening to block chuck hagel, and now that they are scoffing at even the prospect of jack lew at treasury, there are two options for understanding what republicans are doing here. they are either just making noise to convince their base that they still exist, and the beltway is dutifully reporting it as if it matters, but it doesn't. all those nominations are going to be or would have been fine, or the other option is that republicans really are going to try to set an absolutely historically unprecedented bar against the president nominating his chosen cabinet in a way that has never happened before in u.s. history. they will block, say, a nominee for treasury secretary because mitch mcconnell once felt irked in his presence. if that is really what they are planning, keep in mind that the republicans' mandate for doing this is something that they think derives from an election that the president just won by a lot and which their party lost seats in both the house and the senate. so it's eithe
on that. he says, he floated the names of susan rice and chuck hagel out there for secretary of defense and secretary of state. ignatius then says, "obama has been backing into the second term in his cabinet choices, too. these are unnecessary, self-inflicted wounds for the administration." also criticizing how he handles that. so making small decisions, not big ones. >> well, i'm sort of surprised to see that from david ignatius, frankly. because this isn't the first time he's seen a nomination process where names leak out, people rise to the top, fall to the bottom. >> yeah. >> for starters, susan rice is one of the most talented people in this administration and would have been an awesome secretary of state. but she pulled out because it was her decision to stop all the distractions that she was causing. so to criticize the president for the noise that republicans make or the noise that anybody else is making from the outside on people who haven't even been chosen for cabinet posts is silly on its face. it's washington and that's the washington game that people play. >> bill has a fa
't think we should change the talking point -- clarify the talking points that susan rice leading up to the al-qaeda. i've told three stories. director of national intelligence said they changed the talking point. f.b.i. said no, it might have been us. because of ongoing criminal investigation. the final answer believes the c.i.a. may have changed the talking point deleting references to al-qaeda. i'm not going to confirm john brennan or anyone else until the administration shares information with the congress about who deleted references to al-qaeda three weeks before the election. i think it was purposefully done and i want to know who did it before we move forward. >> you're committed to holding the nomination up? >> yeah. i don't want to. but i'm not going to let the administration get away from having to be held accountable. the state department, you will hear from hillary clinton. who did change the talking points and take al-qaeda out? what did the president do in seven hours? they are making two movies about the strong leadership and the bin laden raid. this administration le
official talking points about the attack and not the white house. ambassador susan rice had been under fire for weeks about comments she made right after the attack leading some lawmakers to question whether the presidential staff had rewritten the talking points for political reasons ahead of the election in november. he is the former senior advisor. happy new year, happy to see you, christian. thanks for being here. >> what do you make of the senate report? >> unfortunately it doesn't shed that much light on the issue. there are ways the talking points can be manipulated without the white house staff sitting down with a red pen and changing them. this report says the changes were made at the agency. it is perfectly easy and reasonable for white house staff to pick up a phone and say, you know, it would be better if them pho sized the possibility of a movie causing these protests rather than the real cause which was the al-qaeda affiliate who planned and executed the uhing tay. the key issue remains. there are a lot of questions about the talking points that remains. >> the white house sai
. i thought it was also notable that she said she did not select susan rice to be the public spokesperson. she had nothing to do with the talking points and was very clear to point out that on the 12th of september, relatively hours after this attack, she had, in fact, described it as a terrorist attack and armed militant attack. definitely giving herself some distance from what was a real political football. >> david sanger, you've watched these kinds of confrontations before, these political debates, over foreign policy. there's a bigger issue here, which is what do we do about libya, what do we do about security, and what's happened since libya with some of those same elements moving into mali and then algeria. this is not going to be an easy issue to resolve in a second term for president obama. >> it certainly isn't, andrea. i think what was most notable about the testimony was that while the secretary came quite well prepared to talk about the question of benghazi and, of course, as you noted before, whether congress had underfunded the overall embassy security issue, w
up there, something susan rice was not able to do when she was in play. >> rose: she went up there but it didn't work. >> i think he needs to emerge from those meetings with at least a different tone. i think senator mccain is extraordinarily important. he supported senator mccain in 2000, didn't support him in 2008. senator schumer on the democratic side is important and mitch mcconnell the republican leader are important. there will be some republican senators opposed. he needs to hold the democrats in advance of his hearings and he needs to come out of the hearings, again, with a solid democratic support and a lot of republican support. i don't think he's going to get an overwhelming vote from the republicans, at least right now. doesn't feel that way. but i think he'd like to get 20 of them, 25 of them. that would be at this point probably best case for the white house. >> rose: but is the republican opposition to him primarily over some policy position he has about america's engagement overseas and the end of it, as david spoke to, or is it about what he has said or what
. >> right. let's add the name of susan rice to this discussion. because i think we might not even be having this discussion had he picked susan rice and had she had a better shot at being confirmed. a lot of progressives are still upset he didn't fight for her like he's going to have to fight for hagel. i want to leave that question aside. i don't think it has to do with gender. if he got his way, he didn't tell me he wanted to pick her, but had he been able to appoint susan rice, this might be a different picture. we might not even be talking about it. >> who did he pass over that could have met the quality test year? you don't have to be exactly the same as john kerry, but in that league. this is what i think you're pointing out about bringing up the foreign team. >> who is it actually? >> all the press, all the guys on the right now are saying flournoy. i don't know her. >> i don't know her either but i'm told she's terrific. >> her resume is dynamite. >> and would have been a great choice. but again, you bring people up and they develop a public profile as well. but to joan's point, i a
here. no question. we thought it was susan rice for secretary of state. not surprising for a president who won an election to decide to pick one or two big personnel fights. that happens in politics. think think -- the white house calculation, jim's dead right about the iraq war. if we have to re-debate the iraq war, they're on the high ground for that one and hearing criticism he's soft. normally when a democrat does that, they want someone that's tough because the criticism historically is they're soft on defense and here's a republican choice labeled as soft, soft on israel and soft coming to iran sanctions. john mccain and other conservatives say soft with the end of the iraq war and the president's comfortable with him and comfortable with the new cia chief. the president doesn't have to face re-election. this is the second term a different set of calculations and thinks he has work to do, diplomacy. they think they'll win in the end. >> i want to ask you about hagel's israel comments because he made some pretty pointed comments about israel and going to quote them. in one, hagel
to get president obama. we're going to get hillary clinton. we're going to get susan rice. started by mitt romney. picked up by john mccain. ever since they've been trying to exploit the murder of a united states ambassador and three other americans for cheap political gains and they are still at it and still trying to make a big point about the fact that when susan rice went on the sunday talk shows and gave what she said was preliminary information that would probably change might likely change the same information that was given to members of the senate, to members of the house and to the white house, they all had the very very, very same reports from our intelligence officers that republicans finding she was deliberately misleading the american people. they've been beating the drum ever since. it is false false false. it was gusting to see them do it yesterday. the secretary of state handled herself admirably. first of all, as she has done -- she was tough, she was patient but she didn't take any crap either. as she's done before, she said look the buck stops here. >> as i have
last thing in the world they want. take the situation with susan rice we just went through. nation'shave the first black president just re-elected and trying to nominate the nation's third black u.n ambassador to become the third black secretary of state. this would be considered progress. by a sensible definition of progress. the left says any criticism of susan rice is racism. >> because she was a woman and it is race. >> she was said to be a black woman who is how it was said she got it in the first place. what they are going to do to tim scott and what they did to mia loven and what they do to any black conservative. what we have to do is go on offense. we have to have the hell no moment from the left -- >> hold on. does go on offense mean i am not a racist, i swear. >> no becauset that is defense. defense is the first thing we do on the right. i am not a racist. and then we trot out, well let me show you we have examples. with all due respect you are absolutely right, butt they are not going to recognize that. the first thing we have to do is start with a cultural attitude as
for secretary of state was susan rice, a woman. i understand they're looking at each individual individually and looking at candidates saying who is the person we want. but you also have to look at the team holistically and say how is this team going to work together. i am concerned from that perspective. having diversity and people who come from different backgrounds, makes for better decision making. when i see the same type of person in terms of their demographics being nominated for position after position, i hope that he is looking in future appointments to include more diversity because i think it will make the country and the decision making process stronger. >> to krystal's point, take a look at this picture from today's "new york times." it was taken late last month. and it features the president's senior advisers. and other than valerie jarrett who i believe is hidden in the photo, all the president's men. >> yes. you can just barely see her leg behind the man in the blue shirt in the middle there. diversity is its own reward. we don't just want women just to fill a quota. >> that'
, susan rice, going out, senator mccain took note on september 15, on 5 sunday talk shows, the secretary today, was rather flip ant, i thought, in saying, going on sunday talk shows is not her favorite thing. as if that would be the first condition that would have to be met for her it tracy th addressn people, she assumed no responsibility, no engage. in the process, your thoughts? did she refuse to do so? and you know, how in the world do you deal with the reality a u.n. ambassador lied to the american people. >> my take on the sunday shows that president, white house, the campaign for president's reelection wanted a political operative on those talk shows that give a political message, not a real message, that had to do with our national security and terrorism in the world, susan rice was very willing to be that political operative, that is her history, that is the role she wanted to continue to play with this administration in that campaign. lou: as we wrap this up. it appears we're in agreement, that nothing new was learned today in this process, we watched a process that took more
ambassador susan rice saying five days after the attack it all started with protest against an anti-islam video. >> the do you disagree to me that a simple phone call to the evacuees to determine what happened would have ascertained immediately there was no protest? that is a piece of information that could have been easily obtained. >> with all due respect we had four due americans was it because of a protest or guys out for a walk one night that decided they'd kill americans? what difference at this point does it make? >> senator rand paul said to her face she failed to do her job. >> i'm glad you are accepting responsibility. i think ultimately with your leaving you accept the culpabilitybe since the worst tragedy since 9/11. it really mean that. had i been president at the time and i found you did not read the cables from benj benj - benghazi and from ambassador teachs i would have relieved you from your post. >> hillary clinton said she was aware of the attempt on the life of the british ambassador in benghazi and i.e.d. attack on the consulate wall. but stevens' cables request
out. they are hitting susan rice, the u.n. ambassador. that's old news. they are hitting this. well, what the duce happened? that's what we need to know. >> here is one question along those lines that should have been asked and i didn't hear it asked in several hours of testimony. was autopsy performed on ambassador stevens? >> bill: that's right. >> what was the finding as to his cause of death? let me raise one question that secretary clinton stated under oath which potentially could cause problems for her down the line. and she said to the senate this morning, i certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the intelligence community's talking points at the time that ambassador rice went on the tv shows. in short, what she is saying there is i had no evidence whatsoever as of september 16th that this was a terrorist attack. our own chad pergram back in october broke a huge story. you can find tonight internet. there were internal state department emails flying around to 300 people on the national security council, the situation room, and elsewhere showing that within ho
prove their conspiracy theory about how president obama and susan rice and hillary clinton conspired to hide the truth from the american people. all they had to do was get hillary clinton to crack under the awesome pressure of testifying to congress. something she actually mastered 20 years ago. >> capitol hill, locust of dysfunction, hall of smoke and mirrors. >> secretary clinton will face answers that republicans have wanted to ask for months. >> is the u.s. involved with transferring weapons to turkey? >> to turkey. >> they were just throwing everything against the wall. >> we were misled. >> we were not given a clear picture. >> no one has been held accountable. >> had i been president at the time. >> senator rand paul. >> i would have relieved you of your post. >> it was a pukefest. >> i have said many times i took responsibility. >> what difference at this point does it make? >> we have seen these kinds of dramas before. >> i am particularly pleased to appear before you, mr. chairman, making sure we are all moving forward. >> we want to express our thanks to you for the presen
organization of women website. when ambassador susan rice was being attacked, they weren't rising to her defense. her name was the only one of the national security team being floated out there and you would have thought they would have come to her defense. a group of black women, national black womens roundtable stepped out there. you had the congressional black caucus. where was n.o.w. when they could have defended susan rice and kept her name alive to be nominee as secretary of state? >> the susan rice contrast is a very interesting one for a number of reasons. one of them is that susan rice technically took herself out of contention but there was a perception that she had been abandoned by the white house. whereas chuck hagel, a ton of people not only on the political right were raising objections to hagel and yet the white house hung tough on behalf of hagel which is very telling, i would suggest. i think when you're looking at senator kerry and senator hagel, you are looking at two people who served as mentors to president obama when he first entered the senate, with whom he feels
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 453 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)